I agree. That is why you pay them interest and the interest is also directly related to how risky the loan is considered. If you put a 10x asset on the line and

I agree. That is why you pay them interest and the interest is also directly related to how risky the loan is considered. If you put a 10x asset on the line and have a history of paying your debts you pay much less interest on an x value loan, than if you are starting out. The whole framework of student loans is simply crazy and is a factor of inflation of tuition. (Greater supply of capital available to universities.) I am sorry, but politicians' here played the Pontius Pilate card on U.S. citizens and claimed they provide you with the option of education any wealthy democratic country needs. Alas if you are poor and head into this path, you have to consider that you have to make an unattainable monthly payment 6 months after graduating. (The payments I see assume you enter a really good market and attain a good salary with your entry Bachelor's degree. Alas the market is tough.) If you are in debtor's market (high inflation) good for you. Otherwise you are doomed, as the author points out. It is not the legal fault of the bank. (Morality aside.) The bank is going to earn as much of its assets (you that is) as the law allows. And the lawmakers gave the bank the high ground and killed the sentinel. You should NOT get a loan, if you can not invoke bankruptcy or do not have the renegotiate your debt. The bank provides you with a service. You are paying the bank the capital, the opportunity cost (expected gains from investment (comprises inflation)), and a risk buffer. In the case of student debts the bank is allowed to impose you with a risk buffer but practically has little to no risk. If the borrower and the lender are not in an equal footing prepare for disaster. I find the author has slipped into a mental trap due to their predicament. Education is priceless for the democratic society, not always for the individual. (I am not going into authoritarian regimes and why they keep people uneducated here -- read any serious political science intro text). Democracy requires educated involved individuals exercising their power responsibly. As an individual you are better off with the best education you can get that does not kill you (financially). In a lot of countries, this is determined by your abilities as a student and you don't have to worry that much about dying financially. Not so here in the U.S. You can spend 200k to get educated, but you are putting a bullet through your head practically, because you have no way to default to the unsustainable payment options. It is the same as the gambler's fallacy. Say you have a probability of winning 90%. One could say you are going to win, go all in. With 10% you have gone bust and have nothing. Student loans are the same. If 60% [1] of people have to take loans to study, I claim the system is broken and shall call you out as a hypocrite if you say people have equivalent opportunities to start their lives depending on their abilities and work. I say the canary in the coalmine is dead if people question if their kids should go to the university. That is not normal or a positive market indicator. I hope this question remains intrinsically foreign for me and people outside the U.S. How do you expect to compete and act as an individual, if you do/can not invest in yourself? Are you going to compete in unskilled manual labor with automation or "third world" countries (or slave countries like North Korea)? [1]https://www.studentdebtrelief.us/news/rising-tuition-costs-and-the-history-of-student-loans/ https://www.studentdebtrelief.us/news/rising-tuition-costs-a...